It's amazing that you can know the accident was minor when it's not even over yet. Seems like you are not really using reality to form your opinions.
We're looking at a substantial risk of further hydrogen explosions until the cooling is stable and a risk of radiation leakage to those nearby. There is a slight risk of radiation further out, but it's unlikely to cause significant harm. So the primary danger is to plant employees and those trying to cool it down or fight fires. It's unlikely to be able to kill large numbers of people, though it's likely that someone will calculate x% increase of cancer * 128M people (all of Japan) and publish that number.
But let's count the casualties and weigh them against the 5,000 or so who have died from the earthquake already:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031710-e....
Casualty
- 2 workers of cooperative firm were injured at the occurrence of the earthquake, and were transported to the hospital.
- 1 TEPCO employee who was not able to stand by his own with his hand holding left chest was transported to the hospital by an ambulance.
- 1 subcontract worker at important earthquake-proof building was unconscious and transported to the hospital by an ambulance.
- The radiation exposure of 1 TEPCO employee, who was working inside the reactor building, exceeded 100mSv and was transported to the hospital.
- 2 TEPCO employees felt bad during their operation in the central control rooms of Unit 1 and 2 while wearing full masks, and were transferred to Fukushima Daini Power Station for consultation with a medical advisor.
- 4 workers were injured and transported to the hospital after explosive sound and white smoke were confirmed around the Unit 1.
- 11 workers were injured and transported to Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station after explosive sound and white smoke were confirmed around the Unit 3.One of the injured workers got medical treatment on March 16th, but the worker reported a flank pain. We required to the offsite center that the worker should be transported to the hospital. After that, the helicopter of JSDF arrived and transported the worker to the FUKUSHIMA Medical University Hospital at 10:56AM
- Presence of 2 TEPCO employees at the site is not confirmed.
The absolutely horrific results of the earthquake and tsunami in no way make Fukushima a minor deal. Yes, it has killed MANY fewer people then the tsunami, but that does not make it a minor deal!
I never said it was a minor deal. My heart goes out to the families of the two workers missing at Fukushima Dai-ichi as well as to those injured.
But I don't get the panic. I mean a run on Potassium Iodide tablets on the US west coast? Seriously?? I don't know if I should be grateful that they at least found something that could be effective or sad that they expect significant amounts of radiation to get that far.
I need to figure out how to use actuarial tables to I can convert these exposure levels to something like "cigarette equivalent risk" by comparing cancer rates.
How can I do one without doing the other, given the nice "radiation plume" graphics, in "arbitrary units" no less, going through the news?
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2335273
I'm not trying to minimize the problems, I'm trying to be realistic about them. After the first hydrogen explosion, if you look through my HN comments, I warned that there were likely to be more. Those are very dangerous, but to the plant employees fixing this, but not to anyone who isn't nearby. Those people are heroes, putting themselves in danger to protect everyone else from further radiation leaks.
But I sincerely believe that nobody who isn't in Japan or in the sea nearby is at any serious risk.
If your approach is rational, you look at this reactor, and you look at how the accident got started, and you think man that really sucks, a 9.0 earthquake and a 30' tsunami? Just like when two 747 jumbo jets collide as one is trying to land on the same runway that another is taking off. You look at what lead up to and ultimately caused the accident, you assure yourself that its not a systemic problem (jumbo jets don't have massive attraction to other jumbo jets for example) you grieve the tragedy, you adjust your planning and your procedure, and you move on.
No matter what happens at Fukushima Daiichi, even if all four of the reactors and their spent fuel rods turn into slag candles fused into the foundation of the plant, a rational person would say "Gee it really is great that we don't have magnitude 9.0 earthquakes with accompanying tsunamis every year, if we did, and they can do this to a nuclear plant, it would be foolish to take those risks."
But an emotional person isn't reasoning, they are afraid. And scared people see black and white, they look at a scary situation like this and say "If we have no nuclear plants I can't be scared like this again!"
No amount of reasoning about the risks makes them less fearful, dealing with fear is a personal issue that goes on inside a person's head. You can try to guide their internal debate but at the end the day, they have to agree not to let their fear override their ability reason, they need to work through it.
We can talk about physics, we can talk about statistics, doesn't help the fearful. We need to embrace them, and say "Yes, I can see that you are very afraid of nuclear power stations. It is completely reasonable to be afraid of nuclear power stations failing and causing grave harm to those around it. But rather than let that fear run us around, let us try to understand when we should be afraid and when we should not be afraid."
People living near that reactor have every reason to be afraid right now. What is going on is not "in control" and what will happen tonight and tomorrow could be worse than what happened yesterday and the day before. People who live near nuclear power reactors might be afraid, but if they choose to they could learn what to fear and what not to fear. They could learn that if a major disaster stuck their town (like say an asteroid strike, or a magnitude 9.0 earthquake) they might want to move 50 or so miles away from the nuclear power plant just in case. They might create plans for just such an option, perhaps renting a storage unit in a nearby town and stocking it with some supplies, etc so that they could relocate there and stay for several days or weeks without having to do anything else. Since even this nuclear disaster (and Chernobyl before it) take time to develop fully, you know there will be time for you to respond (we assume you're not touring the grounds). When you make a plan and take action like that, then you've taken steps to conquer your fear, you are no longer the victim you are now prepared. This is just one of a number of ways we can help people deal with their fear of these things.
To summarize, the ongoing disaster at the plant is a major disaster, certainly for everyone who works at the plant and for people that live near it. Their lives are going to be disrupted forever. For the rest of us, it will become one of those "where were you when ..." kinds of stories like when the Challenger blew up. Our lives will be the same but we will have a painful memory of a tragic event we "witnessed".
"What is the worst-case scenario for Fukushima Daiichi? It's difficult to be definitive, because information is limited and often confused, and the outcome will depend on the decisions the plant's operators take."
They don't discard anything, and just because something is less serious than Chernobyl it does not make it "minor". Also, so-called experts have been consistently wrong in estimating things in the past days.
Seriously guys, just wait and see for a few days before shouting from the rooftops how amazingly reinforced nuclear power has come out of this. You are not helping anyone.
It honestly just seems that you already know that nuclear energy is a must-have, so you are reasoning backwards from there. If the accident was very serious it would call into question your ideas, so it must be minor, even if it's not over yet and some serious shit still could happen in the future. I just can't support this way of reasoning.
But that's creating a seriously false dichotomy: Nobody is saying that this situation is "minor", and I most definitely don't think it is, and did not post this to downplay the situation.
I posted it because Chernobyl comparisons are like the Godwins Law of nuclear power. Things can be very bad without being comparable to Chernobyl.
Yes they are.
Earlier in this very thread, alextingle wrote:
"This relatively minor accident has come at a very unfortunate time."
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2337966
And that's far from the only time this sentiment has been expressed on HN.
Lots of pro-nuclear advocates on HN have repeatedly said that the Fukushima accident is minor. This was especially true a few days ago, but even now some are continuing to maintain it's no big deal.
Or do you feel that a life taken by cancer is worth more than a life taken by drowning??